> -----Original Message-----
> From: Russell Butek [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 8:59 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: clutil.jar vs excalibur-cli.jar - get rid of them!
>
>
> Agreed, Berin. If we want changes, rather than do them
> ourselves, I would much rather tell the excalibur folks what
> we'd like and hope they make the changes for us.
>
> But we're not bringing these files in to change them. We're
> bringing them in simply to avoid a requirement on a jar file
> that recently changed names, and isn't really formally
> available, anyway. We don't want to bring in a big chunk of
> excalibur. All we need are 4 CLI files and while they're
> packaged into a jar in the excalibur build, the formal
> release doesn't contain a cli jar.
Actually that is why the name of the jar changed. Excalibur
is being broken up into smaller "swords" so to speak. That way
if you only want a portion of Excalibur, you can use just that
portion.
I personally like the convenience of the whole jar, but the
size does frighten some would be users. The whole jar is still
available, and always will be, but Excalibur is being officially
made as smaller distributable pieces as well.
>
> Russell Butek
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
> "Berin Loritsch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on 03/19/2002 07:29:06 AM
>
> Please respond to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> cc:
> Subject: RE: clutil.jar vs excalibur-cli.jar - get rid of them!
>
>
>
> I sure hope you intend to post any changes to the Avalon list
> if you Modify those classes in any way.
>
> -- The voice of reason
>
> There really aren't any issues with version conflicts at this
> time with excalibur CLI. Even if there were two copies of
> the jar in your classpath, your classloader would only use
> the first one. And Chances are that it hasn't changed a lick.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Russell Butek [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Monday, March 18, 2002 5:30 PM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: RE: clutil.jar vs excalibur-cli.jar - get rid of them!
> >
> >
> > At first I thought this was a good idea. But now that the idea has
> > fermented in my brain for a few hours, I now think this is
> a BAD idea.
> > If we put something into axis that's really part of something else,
> > then we should rename it. Otherwise, if some user picks up axis and
> > then picks up that something-else, then there could be two
> versions of
> > the same classes and this could result in name and behaviour
> > conflicts.
> >
> > So I'll stick with my vote for 2.b.
> >
> > Russell Butek
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> >
> > Sam Ruby/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS on 03/18/2002 03:22:56 PM
> >
> > Please respond to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > cc:
> > Subject: RE: clutil.jar vs excalibur-cli.jar - get rid of them!
> >
> >
> >
> > Tom Jordahl wrote:
> > >
> > > A possibility is to check the excalibur-cli.jar file in
> to our tree
> > > and when we build axis.jar, we include all the class files in
> > excalibur-cli.jar
> > > in it.
> > >
> > > This removes the big problem of having another (really small and
> > uninteresting)
> > > jar file from the CLASSPATH but allows us to stay in sync
> with the
> > > code.
> > >
> > > The problem with this is I don't grok ant well enough to do
> > it myself.
> >
> > Insert the following some place prior to the actual <jar> task.
> >
> > <unzip src="${excalibur.jar}" dest="${build.dest}" />
> >
> > - Sam Ruby
> >
> > P.S. Do not construe the above as a vote... I'm merely answering a
> > technical question.
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
